There is only One Gospel

[Saint Steven]

Here`s a question for you and it`s a grenade. What is the difference between the two gospels? Not audience, just suppose I had both gospels right in front of me to read. What is the difference

The question reminds me of a missions trip I took as a young man. I was on a team that was doing evangelistic work with Jews in London. (Golders Green) Most will remember the Bill Bright gospel tract titled: Have You Heard of the Four Spiritual Laws?

Well, we used a similar tract, but it was geared to Jews. There were five points instead of four. I don't recall what the exact difference was, but there is an extra layer to get through when the hearer is Jewish. There is a built-in cultural aspect for Jews. And certainly a higher level of social danger involved with a decision to follow Jesus. That would be the primary differences.

In reference to this discussion about Galatians, the "other" gospel that Paul is referring to in chapter one is finally identified at the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter three. Most everyone remembers the famous intro to chapter three. See below.

This other gospel was the teaching of the Circumcision Group. Who were requiring gentiles to come under the law.

Galatians 3:1-2
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

 

[Saint Steven]

Peter held the keys Jesus gave him, he didn`t operate as a dictator but he had an authority that the others didn`t so the gentile salvation was revealed to him and through him first.

The 12 apostles were on a mission to convert Israel, then the rest of the world. They did what they supposed to do. Paul had Jewish enemies working against him but it wasn`t any of the 12.

I don't think that Peter alone held the keys. Those keys were given to everyone listening to that discussion. And to us as well.

 

[RickReads]

The question reminds me of a missions trip I took as a young man. I was on a team that was doing evangelistic work with Jews in London. (Golders Green) Most will remember the Bill Bright gospel tract titled: Have You Heard of the Four Spiritual Laws?

Well, we used a similar tract, but it was geared to Jews. There were five points instead of four. I don't recall what the exact difference was, but there is an extra layer to get through when the hearer is Jewish. There is a built-in cultural aspect for Jews. And certainly a higher level of social danger involved with a decision to follow Jesus. That would be the primary differences.

In reference to this discussion about Galatians, the "other" gospel that Paul is referring to in chapter one is finally identified at the end of chapter 2 and the beginning of chapter three. Most everyone remembers the famous intro to chapter three. See below.

This other gospel was the teaching of the Circumcision Group. Who were requiring gentiles to come under the law.

Galatians 3:1-2
You foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you? Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified. 2 I would like to learn just one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?

Physical circumcision was the deed, the mistake, the Galation error. It indicated they agreed to become
what was called "Proselytes of Righteousness" which indeed commited them to the Laws. So on that one I can say we are both right.

However, this definately isn`t the teaching of the 12 Apostles or the Jerusalem church. It came from false brethren from within the Jewish side of the early church.

I am disappointed in your answer about the gospels. We have 4 copies of the Circumcision gospel in the New Testament and you didn`t give me any scriptures

 

[RickReads]

I don't think that Peter alone held the keys. Those keys were given to everyone listening to that discussion. And to us as well.

Give me scripture on that.

 

[Saint Steven]

Give me scripture on that.

Matthew 18:15-19
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

Matthew 16:17-19
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

[Guojing]

Here`s a question for you and it`s a grenade. What is the difference between the two gospels? Not audience, just suppose I had both gospels right in front of me to read. What is the difference

Gospel of the Kingdom

The gospel of the kingdom was based on the identity of Jesus. Israel needed to believe that Jesus Christ is their promised Son of God and Messiah, as promised by God to David in 2 Samuel 7

12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Put it simply, Jesus was to be that Son of David that will sit on David's throne in Jerusalem. This was repeated in various times throughout the 4 gospels (Luke 1, Luke 18:36-38 etc)

To show faith in this gospel of the kingdom, you are to acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God. There are at least 3 examples I can think of when his happened

Peter
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Martha
John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Ethiopian Eunuch
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Thus the gospel of the kingdom was based the identity of Christ (John 20:31).

Interestingly, only Jews could be saved by this gospel. Gentiles who tried to call Jesus the Son of David were ignored by Jesus, contrast Matthew 15:21-24 to Mark 10:47-49.

One can’t help but to notice the contrast in Jesus’s treatment in the two cases of people who exhibited faith. Both the Canaanite lady and Blind Bartimaeus called him the Son of David, which is the proper term for Jesus. Both of them have faith, one might even argue that the Canaanite lady had lesser unbelief than Blind Bartimaeus.

But because the latter was a Jew, Jesus, almighty God, actually stood still and healed him without any hesitation. But the lady, who is a Gentile, had to further go thru so many tests.

My point is not that Jesus was being deliberately cruel to one but kind to other. Like Paul himself stated Jesus’s mission on Earth, he stated in Romans 15 (KJV)

8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Gospel of the grace of God

Instead of the identity, this gospel is based on believing the finished works of Christ Jesus at the cross, as stated in 1 Cor 15:1-4, this gospel is for Jews and Gentiles.

That is the main difference in the 2 gospel messages.

 

[RickReads]

Matthew 18:15-19
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

Matthew 16:17-19
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

I thought you had a two gospel view Do you really believe you can get together with another Christian and anything you ask for will be done? And in Matthew 18 where did the keys go? Sorry

Jesus had the power of the age to come and His ministry was a temporary manifestation of that time.
Hebrews 6:5 "And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come". Jesus spoke in those terms which is why some of the things He said are tough if not impossible to explain to a non-believer.

In Matthew 18: 18-19 Jesus is speaking in that manner which is why you and I can`t get together and throw a mountain around (Matthew 17)

Matthew 16:19 is a different situation because Jesus gave Peter the keys which conveyed a portion of the power to Peter. He uses it to make some declarations in the book of Acts, i.e. in Acts 2 Peter declares the beginning of the last days. Mind you, I can`t prove this conclusively because the Bible doesn`t give us enough info but that is what I believe.

 

[Saint Steven]

And in Matthew 18 where did the keys go?

The keys are defined in Matthew 16:19 as: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
What do we find in Matthew 18:18-19 ? whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Coincidence? (nope)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Matthew 18:15-19
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

Matthew 16:17-19
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

 

[RickReads]

Gospel of the Kingdom

The gospel of the kingdom was based on the identity of Jesus. Israel needed to believe that Jesus Christ is their promised Son of God and Messiah, as promised by God to David in 2 Samuel 7

12 And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom.

13 He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever.

14 I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men:

15 But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee.

16 And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.

Put it simply, Jesus was to be that Son of David that will sit on David's throne in Jerusalem. This was repeated in various times throughout the 4 gospels (Luke 1, Luke 18:36-38 etc)

To show faith in this gospel of the kingdom, you are to acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God. There are at least 3 examples I can think of when his happened

Peter
Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Martha
John 11:27 She saith unto him, Yea, Lord: I believe that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, which should come into the world.

Ethiopian Eunuch
Acts 8:37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Thus the gospel of the kingdom was based the identity of Christ (John 20:31).

Interestingly, only Jews could be saved by this gospel. Gentiles who tried to call Jesus the Son of David were ignored by Jesus, contrast Matthew 15:21-24 to Mark 10:47-49.

One can’t help but to notice the contrast in Jesus’s treatment in the two cases of people who exhibited faith. Both the Canaanite lady and Blind Bartimaeus called him the Son of David, which is the proper term for Jesus. Both of them have faith, one might even argue that the Canaanite lady had lesser unbelief than Blind Bartimaeus.

But because the latter was a Jew, Jesus, almighty God, actually stood still and healed him without any hesitation. But the lady, who is a Gentile, had to further go thru so many tests.

My point is not that Jesus was being deliberately cruel to one but kind to other. Like Paul himself stated Jesus’s mission on Earth, he stated in Romans 15 (KJV)

8 Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

Gospel of the grace of God

Instead of the identity, this gospel is based on believing the finished works of Christ Jesus at the cross, as stated in 1 Cor 15:1-4, this gospel is for Jews and Gentiles.

That is the main difference in the 2 gospel messages.

Gentiles could be saved under the Kingdom gospel so you are wrong on that count. The path was to become a proselyte and believe in Jesus. Some did just that, confirmed in the book of Acts.

 

[RickReads]

The keys are defined in Matthew 16:19 as: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
What do we find in Matthew 18:18-19 ? whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Coincidence? (nope)

Saint Steven said: ↑
Matthew 18:15-19
“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.

Matthew 16:17-19
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Don`t make me whip out Catholic theology on you.

 

[Guojing]

Gentiles could be saved under the Kingdom gospel so you are wrong on that count. The path was to become a proselyte and believe in Jesus. Some did just that, confirmed in the book of Acts.

Gentiles could only be saved in the OT, by becoming a Jew (Exodus 12:48). They could not be saved as gentiles. (Ephesians 2:11-12)

If you are talking about Cornelius in Acts, the gospel of the kingdom ended when Stephen was stoned, in Acts 7, so God was showing a new way by Acts 10.

 

[RickReads]

Gentiles could only be saved in the OT, by becoming a Jew (Exodus 12:48). They could not be saved as gentiles. (Ephesians 2:11-12)

If you are talking about Cornelius in Acts, the gospel of the kingdom ended when Stephen was stoned, in Acts 7, so God was showing a new way by Acts 10.

A righteous proselyte is a Gentile convert sojourning with Israel. Those were the only Gentiles in the earliest days of the church.

The fall of Israel occurs at the time of Stephens death due to the great persecution and the scattering of the church abroad. The Kingdom gospel lingered on in the circumcision church until Paul`s gospel became dominant and fully accepted.

 

[Guojing]

A righteous proselyte is a Gentile convert sojourning with Israel. Those were the only Gentiles in the earliest days of the church.

The fall of Israel occurs at the time of Stephens death due to the great persecution and the scattering of the church abroad. The Kingdom gospel lingered on in the circumcision church until Paul`s gospel became dominant and fully accepted.

Are you agreeing with my point or disagreeing?

 

[RickReads]

Are you agreeing with my point or disagreeing?

My only issues are the points in my previous post. I can probably agree with most of it, I`m not a dispensationalist though. I think it all unfolds like chapters in a book. Every era part of the same book, right divide not necessarily hard divisions of the Bible.

 

[Guojing]

My only issues are the points in my previous post. I can probably agree with most of it, I`m not a dispensationalist though. I think it all unfolds like chapters in a book. Every era part of the same book, right divide not necessarily hard divisions of the Bible.

As I have said, it was mentioned at least thrice in the Bible that the gospel of the Kingdom was not meant for Gentiles

Matthew 10:5-7
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

The general rule of doctrine forming is you should not form a doctrine with one passage. So if there are more than one, it gives strength to that doctrine. You don't need to be a dispenationalist to come to that conclusion.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Thanks. I appreciate the link. And I did read it with an open mind. (but I was careful not to let my brain fall out - lol)
Mostly semantics. He agrees with me while he disagrees with me.
And I quote:
"If we think of the gospel as the story, then doctrine is the explanation, the interpretation, or the significance of the story." (thus outside the text)
"the doctrine is an explanation..." (thus man-made)
"Where did the doctrine of baptism come from? Right – from the story of Jesus." (thus derived from the text = man-made)
"What about the Biblical doctrine of sin? It is clearly implied in the death of Jesus..." (right, implied - not in the text)
"The doctrines are directly linked to the gospel or come straight from the gospel." (right, linked, they come out of, thus taken from)

And this conclusion is double-talk.
"Or, if you will, the doctrines are another way of saying what the gospel says. That is, doctrines are not the invention of churches. Doctrines come from the gospel."
"Once we see this, the supposed distinction between gospel and doctrine basically vanishes." (how can doctrines be "another way of saying" if they are not "the invention of churches"?)

And the concluding sentence.
"The result is that every Biblical doctrine, therefore, has something to do with the gospel." (therefore derivative, not self-contained)

Here's a question for you.
What is the difference between a biblical and an unbiblical doctrine?
For instance, is the doctrine of infant baptism biblical or unbiblical?
Or the doctrine of transubstantiation. Those who believe in it argue that it is indeed biblical. And they make a strong case. (not that I agree)

Like many other things, "Biblical" can be two different things: 1. Agrees with the Bible 2. Having to do with the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, might be both (Haha, to my mind the doctrine of transubstantiation is neither.) Neither SHOULD be a matter of opinion, but the first one usually is, as far as the churches are concerned.

 

[Saint Steven]

Like many other things, "Biblical" can be two different things: 1. Agrees with the Bible 2. Having to do with the Bible. The doctrine of the Trinity, for example, might be both (Haha, to my mind the doctrine of transubstantiation is neither.) Neither SHOULD be a matter of opinion, but the first one usually is, as far as the churches are concerned.

I tend to use #2, because there is no consensus on #1.

 

[RickReads]

As I have said, it was mentioned at least thrice in the Bible that the gospel of the Kingdom was not meant for Gentiles

Matthew 10:5-7
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 15:24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:

The general rule of doctrine forming is you should not form a doctrine with one passage. So if there are more than one, it gives strength to that doctrine. You don't need to be a dispenationalist to come to that conclusion.

That`s pretty standard dispensationalism. I have to disagree on chopping out the majority of the Bible.

2 Timothy 3
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

 

[Guojing]

That`s pretty standard dispensationalism. I have to disagree on chopping out the majority of the Bible.

2 Timothy 3
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works."

I do understand the resistance. Many churches preach almost exclusively from the 4 gospels and early Acts.

I can understand the appeal. Most of the stories are found there. While in Romans to Philemon, there are practically no stories, but doctrine after doctrine.

We love stories. =)

 

[RickReads]

I do understand the resistance. Many churches preach almost exclusively from the 4 gospels and early Acts.

I can understand the appeal. Most of the stories are found there. While in Romans to Philemon, there are practically no stories, but doctrine after doctrine.

We love stories. =)

Lots of ways I could respond to your remark but nothing worthwhile. Pity you don`t understand the Pauline doctrine I showed you.